The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I tend to agree with Sammy. According to this board about a week or so ago a docket was issued saying this case was down for hearing in court 106 on 3rd Oct. This did not happen the last time, and, some on here have searched and can find no other case allocated court 106.
Someone made a joke about room 101 which slightly confused some.
I don't know the specifics in this case, but I believe in some "no win no fee" cases, as well as a sliding scale there is an absolute max figure that the funder can receive. So, for instance in a mega award, if the max is 200m, then anything awarded over say, around a billion is all for the client.
I have been here a long, long time. The original deal with Dow was that for an exclusive right, Dow could sell to Samsung, dots for $200k per kilo of which 25%would flow to Nanoco. It was estimated that that was sufficient for 1000 tv's of average size. Whilst Dow built their plant, Nanoco would supply at the same price from Runcorn. This worked out as a royalty of $50 per set. Sales for smaller processes such as medical were to be priced at $1m per kilo. It was accepted that over time the price per kilo would reduce. When the exclusive deal was dropped Nanoco expected 50% of the previous payments.
Amerloque, the $50 per set (55 inch I seem to recall being the benchmark) due to Nanoco from Dow was what I remember from the early days of the potential supply to Samsung. I believe, that Nanoco indicated, that as QD's became main stream they expected that royalty to half.
I don't know if many of the posters suggesting $12 - 15 were invested that far back, so that may be why the lower figure is prevalent here.
amerloque, I don't disagree at all, I would prefer to see Samsung have their "face" rubbed in the mud. However, IF we were to win, and as has been said, Samsung have been bigging up "their" QD's, then they, I would have thought, would be looking for the best way out for them, and to me one vaible option seems to be to buy the company at just about any cost. It also prevents someone with much more muscle buying in and making their QD future much more uncomfortable.
Boracic, flowing from life in the clouds, Samsung would be better, and save a lot of face, to just offer that £1.5bn to £2bn for the company; even easier (for them) if it was done in Samsung shares. Have to agree a separate payment to the funders.
A question, perhaps stupid. Could Nanoco, if it were to win in court/PTAB, could it decide not to give Samsung a licence to use the patents? Could the possibility/threat of this be used to bring Samsung to a settlement? I recall reading that Samsung may even try to argue the licence costs in a Chinese court.
Serious question, thanks.
goinglarge, I tend to agree. Within the last month the over exuberance of a couple of posters to defend their views seems to have driven others to merely observe. This was always a well balanced board, except for the occasional visit by a couple of posters who we all knew to ignore or that with a pinch of salt.
Hopefully, those sitting on the sidelines will return and the others on here treat them with respect. Happy for people to express different views but we don't need to be rude.
FT, it's not a secret, AN explained it all a number of years ago, along with the costs. Have a look back if you want. From memory, they are made in the EU, Germany I seem to recall, had no problem in scaling up and cost about 15 euros. As Tom says, message the company if you really are interested.